- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:24:18 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-svg@w3.org
On 10/23/11 8:49 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > On 23/10/11 2:22 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: >> And I'm pretty sure that we will never get same path results across >> platforms. But I assume that platform independent results are needed by >> web developers who want to use this feature. Or is that not so >> important? On WebKit I can just guarantee that for SVG Fonts, because >> the path data of every glyph is already known and independent of the >> various WebKit ports. > > The question of consistency across different implementations/platforms > is worth asking. And even though you might be able to get the exact > same individual glyph paths out, the result of performing the text > layout might depend on system libraries, which means the positions of > the glyphs might be different. What's the question being asked? Michael Deal did some work in Canvas looking at fonts: http://mudcu.be/journal/2010/11/unicode-profiling-project/ I've had to use invisible div hacks to get baseline information. There will be inconsistent results. And, the glyph data itself when rendered may appear in a higher quality than the glyphs displayed by the OS font engine. It's often the case that text legibility/quality is lower in browsers than what is available as a means for faster rendering. > >> Should the path data of every single glyph include all transformations >> (scaling, rotating, stretching)? I think that this makes most sense. In >> which userspace are the information provided? In the userspace of the >> <text> element? > > I don't think it makes sense to apply the transformations due to > transform="" to the path data returned. The path data should just be > in the coordinate system of the <text> element. Scaling or rotations > due to lengthAdjust="" or rotate="" should be applied though. I agree. > >> // Return an SVGPathSegList representing the entire geometry of >> the text content element, >> // including glyphs and decorations. >> >> Why should the path data include text decorations like underline, >> line-through and overline? Can't web developers add these data them >> self? I would expect that the normal glyph data (with font styles) are >> more important. > > Positioning and sizing decorations can be non-trivial to get right, > and in particular to match what the implementation is rendering, if > you don't know what font is being used. I agree about normal glyph > data being more important, though. I agree about decorations, they're hard to get right. Having additional information from the font, such as baseline offsets, is a big help in implementing underline, but it'd be nice to save that added work when possible. -Charles
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2011 16:24:53 UTC